US v. Bobby Hazel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion for leave to file [1000142272-2], granting Motion for leave to file [1000132183-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000124961-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [1000120860-2] Originating case number: 1:93-cr-00062-JCC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000166526]. Mailed to: Bobby Hazel; Fletcher Nathaniel Smith; Parker Tobin. [17-6840]

Appeal: 17-6840

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BOBBY HAZEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:93-cr-00062-JCC-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: October 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States
Attorney, Fletcher Nathaniel Smith, Parker Tobin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6840

Doc: 16

Filed: 10/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Bobby Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits,
a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hazel has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hazel’s
motions to place the appeal in abeyance and for appointment of counsel, grant his motions
to file supplemental briefs, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2